« More "Sickening" Details from Abu Ghraib Emerge | Main | What Conflict of Interest? Abner Mason, Drug-Industry Frontman and Presidential Advisor on HIV/AIDS, Takes Out a Full Page Ad Attacking Generics »
July 14, 2004
Gay Marriage Amendment Scuttled Just as the Administration Prefers
A perfect outcome for the administration: the gay-marriage amendment did not pass the Senate test. Now everyone else can forget about it while the evangalical / fundamentalist base talks about nothing else until November.
It would have been a disaster for the administration if it had passed. Actually modifying the constitution to ban the rights of a group of people irritates many people, even people who are not comfortable with the idea of gay marriage. Plus, if the debate actually continued among the general public there would be all those stories of people who were turned away from the bedside of their dying partners of many decades at the orders of estranged "family" members who had shunned their relative up until that moment. This one is not winnable for the conservatives without greatly damaging any pretense of compassion. It is, however, greatly valuable as a get-the-vote-out issue:
"Four million religious conservative voters sat out the last election, so the president's visible stance on protecting marriage is essential to turning out all of those conservative voters who pulled the lever for him in 2000 and getting those other 4 million to come out for him this year," said Keith Appell, a conservative strategist in Washington.
And I do want to say something to many progressives and radicals who show a lack of enthusiasm for the rights of gay people to marry, rightly pointing out all the problems with the institution of marriage. "What's wrong with civil unions" is often the polite phrasing I hear for "I'm too radical to support marriage for anyone, straight or gay."
Well, nothing wrong with civil unions if that is the the only available civil institution of couplehood for gays and straights alike. In fact, in a sane world, that's what it would be and people who wanted to add a church wedding or a raindance ceremony to their civil union would do so at their own discretion. But so long as that is not the case, so long as there are separate standards for separate types of couples, there is indeed much wrong with civil unions for gays while straights get to marry, even if the institution of marriage ain't always that great. Neither was there anything that great about eating greasy hamburgers at dreary lunch counters in Mississippi during the summer of 1963. Separate standards are an affront to human dignity now, just as they were then.
Posted by zeynep at July 14, 2004 05:40 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.underthesamesun.org/mt-tb.cgi/106
Comments
Once again, Zeynep, you are right-on. Gay marriage is about equal rights and has little to do with the actual institution of marriage which is hardly sacred anyway. Some conservative Senator, whose name I can't recall at the moment, was quoted today on the radio as having said that gay marriage would threaten the survival of our species as marriage has been at the heart of civilization for thousands of years. Talk about hyperbolic nonsense!!! I would say that it is corporate, capitalist imperialism as well as the accompanying creeping militarism along with white supremacy that threatens the survival of our species. But I was unaware of the potent point you make about the failure of this amendment passing being used as a tool to get more conversative religious voters to turn out for the November presidential election. This is a scary thought indeed.
Clearly gays, and lesbians should have the same right to marry as heterosexuals because of the social, economic, and civil privileges that marriage affords couples. There should be no litmus test for any couple that wants the legal benefits and protections of marriage other than that both parties freely agree to the marriage contract. Anything else is no one else's business.
Thanks again for a wonderful posting.
Sincerely,
Old & In The Way
Posted by: Phil Cicchi at July 15, 2004 02:47 AM
Nicely written, Zeynep. I read your blog everyday and it is always a pleasure to do so. My life partner and I have no intention of marrying, nevertheless it is the separate standards that is an affront. Here in Australia our Prime Minister has trod the same path as GWB...all in an election year!
Posted by: Tookie at July 15, 2004 05:56 AM
This posting really made me reassess my own thinking, because I am one of those left types who tends toward civil unions only, and then churches or cults or whatever can have a ceremony and call it what they like. You made exactly the point to change my position to what I really wanted to support--so many friends & associates of mine so passionately desire their own right to marry as a civil right. Thank you for setting me straight.
My "own" senator, John Cornyn (R-Texas), said the other day that the anti-gay marriage amendment was THE most important issue in the country today. That statement on the face of it is so insanely absurd! NO ONE who says things like that should even be allowed to be a U.S senator.
Posted by: leslie at July 15, 2004 01:55 PM